Peg Noonan…

A culture of death is a culture of fear. And as long as it is impenitent, it will persist in attempting to stick more and ever more band-aids on the thousand open and running sores instead of repenting being a culture of death. That’s why we are so rapidly morphing into a security state. We hope that technology, regulation, and force will save us. The narrative of this world is that trusting God is pollyanna nonsense. As long as we embrace that folly and keep trusting in money, sex, and power we will continue to sink into fear.

There are others, but this writer’s style and approach made a lot of sense to me.

Kind regards,

Zac

Posted by wayne on Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010 6:09 PM (EDT):

Sandra, dont wory about Mark, hes a good guy. He takes things personal when he thinks his religion is being shot at. His religion doesnt need us to shoot at it. It shoots its self in the foot everyday. We just sit back and read the newspaper. Have a warm day Sandra. Its kinda hot here in so calif.

Thats right Sandra, being chrisstian in the CC is bad. To them your heart should be in Rome. I get slammed all the time for saying im born again, by catholics that is. Well, for that matter, also by non born again people no matter what religion or not.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010 3:31 AM (EDT):

Sandra:

If you meant to address other blogs, why are you writing here?

And the whole, “I’m a way better Christian than the lot of you!” schtick, while it may be one more way to self-medicate your rage, is not especially a way to impress me with your intellectual coherence while you simultaneously proclaim your atheism. It is a way to persuade me that you are eaten up with pride though.

Meanwhile, the subject of the thread disappears beneath the waves of your self-absorbed anger, yet again. Sandra is angry. Let’s all focus on that as we must always do, everytime she invades a thread to emote.

I’ve never been too sure. Would that be the Lutheran “believeing” or the Calvinist one? Perhaps the Anabaptist believing, or Bill and Ted’s Excellent Bible Shack?

Posted by Sandra Currie on Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010 1:01 AM (EDT):

Mark,
Check out several blogs on this site and you’ll discover the Catholic persecution complex.

And to the person who wanted to know why I became a Catholic, it was because I was born into it, indoctrinated in it from birth. I left because of the hypocrasy.

I once had a priest say to me “You’re really a Christian - that will get you into trouble with the Church, you know”. I wonder where he is now?

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010 12:46 AM (EDT):

Sandra, You’re putting a very negative spin on things. You were once in an order and left and continued to teach. What happened that made you leave the order and then the Church. Why did you enter in the first place? To Tony: You are placing yourself in danger if you do all this research and keep frequenting Catholic blogs. You could end up a believer and when you become one then you will understand why I say He has you looking at this site, doesn’t He?!

Posted by Tony61 on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 11:45 PM (EDT):

Zac and YOS:
Thanks for the thoughts. This is the third time this week someone has mentioned Aquinas and Aristotle (The Philosopher), so I’ll endeavor to look at that again. Also, Cicero’s Natural Law is on the docket

YOS, I’ll admit that I lost you somewhere around Point 7 or 8, but I have the comment flagged and I’ll re-read it tomorrow when my brain is fresh.

Posted by Zac on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 11:13 PM (EDT):

Tony,
I always liked how Aquinas commented on each of his ‘five ways’ or arguments for the existence of God, by saying something like “and this is what men call God”. I like it because it acknowledges implicitly that the being we are discussing does not submit to the loaded and abused terminology we might be using. Our knowledge is limited, and Aquinas’ words suggest some humility in how we conceptualise these things.

“Okay, I’ll submit that I “believe” in a god that is characterized by an orderliness to the universe… Spinoza’s God… but that has no resemblance to the anthropomorphized burning bush or resurrected savior of the Bible. Spinoza’s God is enough for me.”

You are definitely not alone in tracing the intrinsic order of the universe back to some source. The taoists in particular seem to have focused on this order, in their intuitive grasp of ‘the way’ or tao that ‘gives birth’ to and nourishes all things. The same idea is apparently captured in the ‘logos’ of the greek philosophers.

Perhaps it is just me, but these conceptions of the source of all order eventually seem too limited and stale. I can’t say that there is a tao or logos that is the source and epitome of all order/reason, yet not pursue the greater ramifications of this.

So eventually, as Ye Olde Statistician has suggested, we might see some intriguing similarities in the ancient writings of various cultures, and the metaphysical reflections we are making. eg. as you said yourself, if Jesus had described the covalent bond, or if you found some ancient text describing it, you would sit up and take notice.

Or perhaps, if you noticed various taoist texts endeavouring to describe the source of all order in the universe, you would not overlook the common purpose and line of thought to your own ‘god of order’.

If you get into hylomorphic dualism of Aristotle and Aquinas, the same thing occurs: the gods of the greeks and romans are obviously nothing special (whether they exist or not). But the words “I am that I am” or “I am he who is” leap out at you in an ontological context.

Again, I’ll reiterate that where you go from there is not a foregone conclusion. If you just follow the truth consistently, you won’t ever go wrong, right? ; )

Kind regards,

Zac

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 9:09 PM (EDT):

Sandra, what are you babbling about? Who said anything about Catholics being picked on?

Instead of using comboxes as a theatre for self-medication of your anger issues, why not see a shrink?

Posted by Sandra Currie on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 8:50 PM (EDT):

Ahhhhh, poor Catholics - everyone is always picking on them. As Catholics, instead of worrying about how others live their lives, it’s time to clean up your own house. Start with the Vatican Bank money laundering. That’s just greed and immorality. And then take on the big stuff - the fact that the Vatican blocked the Irish governments investigation of clerical sexual abuse which was and possibly still is rampant. These are the issues that need your attendtion. Once your own house is cleaned up, then you may have credentials to be a moral compass. And don’t give me the “we’re all sinners”, or other religions are guilty of sexual abuse. Not good enough. The treatment of victims has been appalling, unChristian, and dare I say, demonic

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 7:10 PM (EDT):

Wayne:

You skim posts, reading them not to understand, but to count occurrences of “Jesus” and you think any adult should care what you think? What a dumb attack on Catholics.

Posted by wayne on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 6:50 PM (EDT):

I kind of skim read thru every post, the smaller ones i could read thru. But only once, correct me if im worng, once was the name of Jesus mentioned, by Mark Shea. He invoked the name of Christ. Ive found that in catholic blogs and other communications, that Jesus doesnt come into consideration. Mary and the Pope are spoke of 1000 times more than the Rock, our shepherd. That speaks volumes are to where loyalties lie.

Posted by Ye Olde Statistician on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 6:15 PM (EDT):

I’m not looking for proof of God, just empiric evidence would suffice.

I’m not looking for proof of an objective universe, just empiric evidence would suffice. Alas, empiric evidence is limited in its utility. At best, it leads to probable knowledge, not to certain knowledge.

We can know all there is to know about sound waves, acoustics, vibrating reeds, and even laws of harmony and chord progression, and it still will not tell us much about Sharon Kam and the Clarinet Concerto in A, let alone about Mozart.

Even if we assume that a First Cause is the operant model [?], that does not mean that we know the nature of the First Cause, and it certainly does not mean that the First Cause takes the form of the mythical figure of the Old and New Testament God who interacts with humans and intercedes in earthly events.

There’s that A-T notion of “nature” again.

There is actually a great deal that can be deduced once you have a First Cause, etc.
1. The First Mover must be Pure Act (If not, it would be in potency to something, hence changeable (movable) by another, hence not First.)
2. There can be only one being of Pure Act. (For two to be distinct, one must possess something the other lacks. But then the other would be in potency toward that something, and see #1.) This eliminates all polytheism.
3. The BPA must be immaterial. (All material being is subject to change, as evidenced by the existence of time, and see #1.) This eliminates Mormonism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
4. In particular, the BPA is eternal. (Since to come into existence and pass out of existence are changes, and see #1.) This renders moot all the “what caused the uncaused cause?” silliness.
5. The BPA is outside space and time. (Since all motions: melting glaciers, budding flowers, orbiting moons, growing children, et al. trace back to a First Mover (Changer) and see #2 and then #3)
6. The BPA is all-powerful. (The First Mover is the source of all change, therefore is the source of things coming-to-have these powers. Since the cause must contain the effect eminently, if not formally, the BPA must contain all powers at least eminently. Hence, all-power-full.) This addresses those who think “all powerful” means something like a modern totalitarian secular State.
7. The BPA is Existence Itself. (Since it is the first cause of existence (see #6), it must contain in itself something analogous to existence; that is, its essence (nature) is “to exist” and “Existence Exists.”) If the BPA could talk, it would call itself “I AM.”
8. The BPA is a rational being.</i> (Since as the source of all powers, it is the source of intellection and volition and therefore possesses something analogous to intellect and will, see #7)
9. The BPA is therefore a <b>person. (Since a “person” is an individual substance of a rational nature, and see #8). At this point we can call the BPS “He” (or “She”, if you prefer. Both are analogical terms anyway.)
10. He is all-knowing. (Since #1 and #3, there are no limitations to His perfection, i.e., to His achieving fully His Nature, incl. #8.)
11. He is Triune. (Since intellect and will are predicated of Him, see #8, and both have subject and object. As the subject of both predicates, we call Him the Father. To know is to conceive and we conceive in words, so “as known,” He is the Word and is conceived by the Father. Likewise, to will is to desire and desire proceeds to the desired and returns with it. So “as desired,” He is the Spirit and proceeds from the Father.)
12. But because He is Pure Act, each of these hypostases are completely Actual in themselves, identical in substance but distinct in person.

The link, as you see, is in God’s peculiar statement to Moses that his “name” is I AM. To see just how peculiar a name this is, compare to other names given to other gods, and consider the ancient Jewish contention that one cannot make an image of I AM. Similarly, such a being is as able to intervene in His creation as Shakespeare was free to make his characters do what he wanted or to insert a deus ex machina into the plot. But it was poor art to do so.

Posted by Ye Olde Statistician on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 4:41 PM (EDT):

I too was indoctrinated and followed Catholicism - attended 12 years of Catholic school, Catholic university, and entered a religious order. AFter I left the order I still spent several years in the Church and taught catechism to teens. But, unlike George Bush, God never told me to invade Iraq.

This raises non sequitur to an art form!
+ + +So, just because we don’t have an answer to a tough metaphysical question, we jump to an implausible belief in angels and goblins?

Goblins? Where is the metaphysical necessity for “goblins”? Or is that one of the cute put-down thingies that the Enlightened use as cultural markers to signal their being in-the-know? (Angels, of course, fill in the necessary blank in the continuum from Pure Potency (hule prote) to matter-without-spirit (stones) to matter+spirit (petunias, puppies, and people) to spirit-without-matter (angels) to Pure Act.)

the whole celibacy and authoritarian thing nixed it.

Ever since the Triumph of the Will over the Intellect, the idea of not pleasuring the male sexual organ at every opportunity has become an common cultural trope. So has the confusion of love and obedience with “authoritarianism.” The age of socialism cannot imagine any sort of relationship that is not a power relationship: authority to subservient.

I would guess that such narcissism has nothing to do with one’s belief system (or lack thereof), but more to do with human nature.

But to believe that there are such things as natures or essences puts one on the slippery slope to Aristotelian-Thomism. And once you’re there, a whole lot of consequences follow. The Modern Age (ca.1500-ca.1968) has been in continual denial of essences.

Posted by Sandra Currie on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 4:00 PM (EDT):

Isn’t the bottom line, folks, that some of us believe in a god and some of us don’t? I don’t no believe in god because I’ve had a revelation, or I’ve had unanswered metaphysical questions, it’s simply that I don’t believe in god, have not need or desire to believe in god, no need to pray or have anyone else pray so that I can get the faith. I believe in eternal life, however, and that because I’ve had conversations with both my deceased parents, amongst other spirits on the other side. These conversations didn’t take place because I went to a new age guru or whatever. They happened without my doing anything to invite them.

Incidentally, I’ve yet to meet anyone on the other side who now believes in god, although they all did when on this side. Interesting, eh?

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 3:15 PM (EDT):

Everyone that has examined the Resurrection has determined it to be true? Really?

Where did I say that? As to the rest, since you opted not to address any of the points I made, but merely to affect being offended in a blase way, I will assume you aren’t interested in a conversation. Just as well, since, as I say, I’m pretty busy.

Posted by Tony61 on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 2:39 PM (EDT):

Thank you, Mark, for the thoughtful words. Quite an enlightening tirade. It’s been a while since I’ve heard such a torrent of baseless attacks. Everyone that has examined the Resurrection has determined it to be true? Really? It’s your blog, so keep telling yourself that.

I don’t really have much time this week, so my reply must be pretty inadequate. You write

Mark, you can be forgiven for the gross generalization of atheism since this is, to paraphrase you, a common trope among believers.

You don’t tell me what the gross generalization is. That atheism is due to ignorance or pride? I see no other explanation. True, it’s also due to laziness many times, but since sloth is rooted in pride (as are all the sins), I take it back to the root. It’s not due to some hard thinking, unless that hard thinking proceeds from deeply mistaken premises (i.e., ignorance).

My observation is that atheists and theists all strive to be good actors with the same vigor and have similar rates of pride. To an atheist, there is no greater conceit than to claim some special knowledge through revelation from a supernatural being.

And yet, of course, there is nothing necessarily conceited about it, just as there is nothing necessarily conceited about claiming to have seen something nobody ever saw before about the nature of gravity. The obvious question to ask about a claim of revelation is “Is it so?” not “Is the one making the claim an egoist?” Simply dismissing a claim of revelation without examination is, as I note above, lazy. Also, it’s worth noting that there is absolutely nothing in the Christian revelation to suggest that the revelation is given as a reward for the superior qualities of the recipient. It is, notably, given to the failures and human debris of the world. Atheism in contrast, notably advertises itself in terms of superiority over the primitives who toil in superstitious darkness far from the light of reason.

We would do well as a community to emphasize our similarities rather than dwell on our differences.

Why not pay attention to both?

As a non-believer I come to this site to get this Catholic perspective without undue moralizing, and I think you do a good job. The fact is that most of us in western civilization grew up in theistic households, but some of us feel that we achieved a realization that theism is not sustainable as a model for modern civilization.

Note the prideful word “achieved”. That’s the note of snobbery I was referring to earlier. As a former agnostic, I’m highly skeptical of the claim that an atheism which consists, as yours appears to, of a drowsy chronological snobbery is any sort of achievement. People who say things like “modern civilization” can’t believe in, say, the Resurrection aren’t demonstrating any sort of intellectual achievement that I can see. They are simply saying that something which people believe on Friday the 10th is somehow rendered impossible by it being Monday the 13th. It’s an argument only a wooly minded modern can believe.

What am I to do if I just can’t believe that a guy rose from the dead, or that Mary appeared in Green Bay, WI?

For starters, stop talking as though something you “just can’t do” is an achievement. It is, quite obviously, a weakness, a disability, something you are incapable of, not something you have “achieved”. In short, lose the snobbery.

After that, you might try asking yourself why it is you are so radically incapable of doing what other people of equal and even superior gifts of intellect are able to do—without that consoling self-congratulation that you are “achieving” something lesser beings cannot.

Shut up and pretend I do? Or seek a more sustainable framework with which to live my life?

There are other alternatives, such as asking God for the gift of faith.

In our culture, such a realization does not come easily—it is not a popular stance to take and goes against every cultural precept we have been fed, so in that respect I suppose admission to atheism takes some semblance of self-confidence… but “pride” in the pejorative sense? Many atheists I know do not “claim one is much better than the foolish believer”, although I suppose such atheists exist. “Phariseeism”? Please, you’re better than that, Mark.

In our culture, such realization comes extremely easily and is a very popular stance, particularly in urban environments among hipsters and other consciously disaffected people striking the pose of the disaffected cultural despiser. The *truly* counter-cultural thing in a place like NY, DC, LA, or my native Seattle would be to stand up and offer a ringing declaration of faith in Jesus Christ. One would be regarded with the same distaste as a pair of soiled underwear on a coffee table. Don’t kid me that it takes courage to be a blase atheist with a bemused air of having “achieved” superiority to the unwashed and backward suckers who believe all that primitive rubbish about miracles and such. It’s as easy as falling off a log in our culture. All you have to do is let prevailing winds carry you. As to whether one is a moralistic Pharisee, I made it clear that not all atheists do this. But a great many do, as any reading of an atheist list or chatroom will make clear. Even our own Sandra here is clearly playing the moralist card as she pulls out irrelevant accusations about the Iraq War to justify her rage-based rejection of the Faith (because the Church was such a huge supporter of the war).

For every annoying solipsistic atheist, I can name 3 annoying self-righteous theists, Pope Benedict notwithstanding. I would guess that such narcissism has nothing to do with one’s belief system (or lack thereof), but more to do with human nature.

We don’t disagree. That was my point in saying that “I’m just as moral as thou” arguments by atheists are true, but trivial. It’s another way of saying that atheists are sinful, since Christians don’t have some corner on sinlessness. What they have is a totally undeserved revelation (free for the taking by anybody) that sinfulness does not have to be the permanent condition of the human race. An atheist doesn’t escape the problem of sin by rejecting God. He merely loses the possibility of ever doing anything about sin besides being stymied by it, ignoring it, giving it a euphemistic name, or succumbing to it.

Posted by Tony61 on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 11:38 AM (EDT):

Zac, welcome to atheism, my friend!
Okay, I’m being facetious… but this is the crux of the matter. While we can all imagine on some obtuse level the idea of a First Cause, we cannot know or even guess at its nature. And to say that First cause resembles the YWHW of the Judeo-Christian tradition is several bridges too far.

Okay, I’ll submit that I “believe” in a god that is characterized by an orderliness to the universe… Spinoza’s God… but that has no resemblance to the anthropomorphized burning bush or resurrected savior of the Bible. Spinoza’s God is enough for me.

The orderliness of the universe is manifest in the laws of physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, etc… If Jesus had explained the covalent bond, then maybe he’d have been onto to something novel, still not divine, but closer. The “Love your neighbor” stuff had been done to death already, ingrained in our genes, pontificated upon by holy men, diagrammed by scholars; Jesus was merely expanding the moral community for the Jews, and teaching it in the vernacular—- a good thing, perhaps—- but certainly not god-like. To believe Jesus was God, you have to have faith in more—his supernatural powers—and I don’t.

Posted by Zac on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 10:49 AM (EDT):

Tony: this is getting interesting!

“So, just because we don’t have an answer to a tough metaphysical question”
Well, I meant rather that there was one logical answer, and no apparent alternatives. I couldn’t reject the logical answer without making an appeal to ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.

“we jump to an implausible belief in angels and goblins?”
Where and if we jump is a separate matter…it does not follow necessarily from the First Cause argument.

“just empiric evidence would suffice”
‘Empiric’ = ‘Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience;’
...which rules out deductive reasoning. How can we apply an experiment or experience to a First Cause? And on what grounds do we decide that ‘empiric’ is the only acceptable standard of evidence? Not on empirical grounds…and not on deductive grounds or else deductive reasoning would be admissible.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
‘Extraordinary’ = ‘out of the common order,’
...but who decides what the ‘common order’ is? Deductive reasoning is commonly accepted as evidence in most areas of life. And to decide that a First Cause is outside the common order is really begging the question, isn’t it?

Returning to your main point, like you I find it impossible to make myself believe something; and it seems foolish to try. Rather I would (ideally) just follow the promptings of reason and the pursuit of truth. It is very gradual.

For me, the early rewards have lain in the intellectual discovery of metaphysical principles which - if reason is true - must be realities. The awe I experience in such considerations is perhaps analogous to the awe you describe in your study of the natural world. From my point of view, if the object of this awe is good, then more is better, and I’ll pursue it further. The idea of jumping to a holus bolus acceptance of a religious culture or outlook seems impossible to me, not to mention contrary to that pursuit of truth.

Kind regards,

Zac

Posted by Tony61 on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 9:48 AM (EDT):

Pam says, “He has you looking at this site, doesn’t He?” Don’t know about that. Charter Cable is my ISP.

Zac says, “I became interested when I realised that I could not provide convincing alternatives to the First Cause argument…or rather, that metaphysics had rigour.” So, just because we don’t have an answer to a tough metaphysical question, we jump to an implausible belief in angels and goblins? I’m not looking for proof of God, just empiric evidence would suffice. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Sandra, you have me trumped. Although I had (briefly) considered entering an order, the whole celibacy and authoritarian thing nixed it. Daniel Berrigan was an early hero of mine, he just has one more God than I do.

Posted by Sandra Currie on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 2:06 AM (EDT):

Hi Tony61

I just find it really patronizing when someone points out how misguided I am, and then says they will pray for me. So, I want to send it back to them and suggest they use their prayers on someone who cares to be prayed for. It assumes that I need their help.

I too was indoctrinated and followed Catholicism - attended 12 years of Catholic school, Catholic university, and entered a religious order. AFter I left the order I still spent several years in the Church and taught catechism to teens. But, unlike George Bush, God never told me to invade Iraq. Oh well.

Posted by Zac on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 1:30 AM (EDT):

Hi Tony,

thanks for your good reply; I’ll have to beg Mark’s indulgence a little longer.

“Even if we assume that a First Cause is the operant model, that does not mean that we know the nature of the First Cause, and it certainly does not mean that the First Cause takes the form of the mythical figure of the Old and New Testament God who interacts with humans and intercedes in earthly events.”

I very much agree that we cannot proceed from First Cause to any particular religious account of God.
However, I think we can reasonably squeeze a little more out of the First Cause concept. For example, the First Cause must, by definition, be itself uncaused (Nothing else can have existed to cause it, nor could it have caused itself). If it is uncaused, it must have always existed (eternal).

It might well be impossible for us to imagine something uncaused and eternal, because everything else we are aware of is subject to causation and is transient/impermanent. In other words, our existence is contingent (on other causes), whereas the existence of the First Cause is necessary/independent.

For such a thing to exist independently and without cause, it must exist in its own right; hence the title given ‘ipsum esse subsistens’ subsistent being itself, or simply ‘being itself’.

So while we have existence as a result of some cause external to ourselves, the First Cause is self-existent by definition. It is in its nature to exist, whereas we are merely caused to exist. I don’t know if this means we can correctly call it “pure being” or “pure existence”, but I think it is close to that idea.

My understanding and representation do not do justice to the subject matter, but I hope it indicates at least that there are logical/rational repercussions of the First Cause argument.

“In fact, I would think that any God worth his salt wouldn’t have proper respect for a convert that claimed Belief based on paltry evidence. I’m not arguing with the validity of your faith, I just don’t have it.”

Well, that’s not really my approach to the matter…I became interested when I realised that I could not provide convincing alternatives to the First Cause argument…or rather, that metaphysics had rigour.

“The Bible stories are nice, as are the Bhagavad Gita, the Arabian Nights, the various Vedas, Tao-te-Ching, etc, etc, and in many ways represent the distilled wisdom of the cultures from which they arose, and if by that you mean they are allegorically the “Word of God”, then fine.”

Well, the various cultures treasured these writings for a reason…my interest lies in the extent to which these writings and ideas reflect reality…some better than others. At some point, one begins to take for granted the similarities in these texts, and the differences become more important.

I’m sure Mark will show mercy to this humble metaphysical discussion…

Kind regards,

Zac

Posted by Tony61 on Monday, Dec 13, 2010 12:05 AM (EDT):

Zac, thanks for the interjection and at the risk of hijacking Mark’s site (too late maybe), I’ll make a brief response. The First Cause argument is reasonable, but reason dictates that we do not know the nature of that First Cause. Physicists opine about a Big Bang, theists of every stripe have their Creation stories. Atheists will ask, well if there God created the universe, then who created God? And on it goes.

I don’t know who or what created the universe or ignited the Big Bang… and I’ll offer that you don’t either. Yes, a lot of people throughout history have claimed revelation of such truths from supernatural beings, I just don’t believe it. Even Paul the Epistler (then known as Saul of Tarsus) needed to be knocked senseless from his horse by God in order to believe—I still think a more likely scenario is that he was having an ocular migraine or perhaps an occipital lobe seizure, but I digress. When such a cataclysmic event occurs in my life, as has happened in all saints’ lives and conversion stories, then maybe I’ll believe too. Even the adamant atheist Richard Dawkins holds out the possibility that God exists (he says he’s a #6 on the 7 point scale of atheism where #1 is “sure belief in God” and #7 is “sure belief there is no God”), so I guess he’s technically an agnostic.

In fact, I would think that any God worth his salt wouldn’t have proper respect for a convert that claimed Belief based on paltry evidence. I’m not arguing with the validity of your faith, I just don’t have it.

Even if we assume that a First Cause is the operant model, that does not mean that we know the nature of the First Cause, and it certainly does not mean that the First Cause takes the form of the mythical figure of the Old and New Testament God who interacts with humans and intercedes in earthly events. That takes faith that the revelations of burning bushes and resurrected saviors were valid; I don’t have that faith.

The Bible stories are nice, as are the Bhagavad Gita, the Arabian Nights, the various Vedas, Tao-te-Ching, etc, etc, and in many ways represent the distilled wisdom of the cultures from which they arose, and if by that you mean they are allegorically the “Word of God”, then fine. I choose not to use that language.

Anyway, this is pretty far afield from Peggy Noonan, and I’m dangerously into the GYOFB territory by now, so sorry. G’night.

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Dec 12, 2010 11:37 PM (EDT):

From St. Jerome Biblical Commentary on Wisdom: “Foolish were all who failed to know God from studying his works and who considered the words themselves as gods.” And “Israel’s knowledge of God was derived not from rational arguments but from the experience of God’s saving acts on Israel’s behalf.” Pg. 519. So in the first quote, (there’s one in the Bible also I think) we should be able to recognize the existence of God from nature. And in the second quote, personally experience Him is not rare, but normal. ( But in His time.) I was raised Catholic too and went to Mass every week through College and walked away at about 22. During College some friends who had never been to Church had a conversion experience and were on fire with Love for Him. I couldn’t understand. I still lived my faith but left when I got out into the working world and it was just considered naive. Then I was planning to get married and went to a Church for the ceremony and heard the words again and remembered what the faith taught. Still I did nothing. Then I became pregnant and brought our child to be baptised just so he would have the same background as us and understand where we were coming from. The words of the ceremony moved me. Still nothing. Then my sister became ill and my mother asked me to pray for her and asked me to say the rosary and WHAM. God made His presence so powerfully real to me, I was flooded with grace and began going to Mass and eventually confession etc. We don’t know WHEN He will give us this gift, but we are asked to believe He will give it. I was away from the Church at least fifteen years. Don’t give up on Him. He has you looking at this site, doesn’t He? So no I don’t think ego has anything to do with communication conduits between God and man. I think it’s how it’s meant to be. God bless.

Posted by Zac on Sunday, Dec 12, 2010 10:38 PM (EDT):

@Tony61

“God’s existence is not discernible from the world around me. Don’t get me wrong, nature is astounding, and a complete amazement. I’m privileged to work in a profession that allows me to celebrates these wonders on a near-daily basis. The natural wonders are enough without yearning for the supernatural.”

Hi Tony,

Forgive my interjection; but it seems to me that the existence of ‘God’ is indeed not discernible from the natural world. What is discernible to our intellects is the necessary existence of a first cause. If the totality of the Christian God was discernible from nature (Natural Theology) there would be no need for revelation.

The interesting possiblities arise once we recognise that a first cause must exist, and - by definition - be an essentially different kind of being from every other being in existence.

I think a great deal of unnecessary confusion exists on both sides (or all sides) of this on-going debate, where people either wrongly assert that the Christian understanding of God can be grasped simply from a study of nature; or else wrongly infer that the inability to discern the existence of such a God therefore disproves the argument.

Rather, the argument from design (now considered weak in the face of evolutionary concepts) merely points to the existence of a designer; likewise, the first cause argument merely points to the existence of a first cause. Yet the existence of a first cause is an intellectual step that many people seem unwilling to take, despite its apparent modesty.

You may not wish to respond, but I am curious to know what you make of these comments.

Kind regards,

Zac

Posted by Tony61 on Sunday, Dec 12, 2010 9:22 PM (EDT):

Since Pam was referencing my comment, I feel compelled to defend her beneficent offer to pray for me, and I’ll respond with what I always say when someone says they are praying for me: Thank you, that’s a kind sentiment.

God’s existence is not discernible from the world around me. Don’t get me wrong, nature is astounding, and a complete amazement. I’m privileged to work in a profession that allows me to celebrates these wonders on a near-daily basis. The natural wonders are enough without yearning for the supernatural.

As for the saints giving “proofs” of God’s love and his activity in our lives—sorry, I don’t see it. And it’s not for lack of trying. I’ve been through most of the RCC sacraments, followed the catechism through 12 years of Catholic school, studied the Bible, read about the saints, attended Mass for the first 20 years of my life at least 3X per month, and was even coordinator for the my HS Rosary Club. If God had not gotten in touch with me, it was not for lack of trying on my part.

As for egoism, I can imagine no greater egoism than to think that one has a communication conduit with the Creator of the universe. I claim no such special privilege.

“...theism is not a sustainable model for modern civilization. What am I to do if I just can’t believe that a guy rose from the dead or Mary appeared in Green Bay Wisconsin?” Where to begin? Look around you. God’s existence is discernable from the world around you. Creation should fill you with awe. But if it doesn’t, you should humbly reflect on the theist teachings you were raised on, pray and do some research. Great saints have given so many proofs of the existence and love of God and his active role in our lives. I would recommend Mother Theresa and Padre Pio who are recent saints. Do you not see the egoism in your jump from your personal faith struggle to “not a sustainable model for modern civilization”“!? You haven’t found God (and don’t seem to have done much looking) so all modern civilization needs a better “model”? Wow. There’s alot of self love in that statement. God does exist. He shows himself to us in millions of ways every day. It does take faith to have a personal relationship and if you reject faith or are unwilling to pray and ask for it, you are in a bind. I will pray for you. God bless.

Posted by bt on Saturday, Dec 11, 2010 6:15 PM (EDT):

I remember my 5 year old nephew a few months ago running across the yard and seeing a falling leaf behind him yelling, “C’mon leaf!”

Life!

Posted by Tony61 on Saturday, Dec 11, 2010 11:20 AM (EDT):

Mark, you can be forgiven for the gross generalization of atheism since this is, to paraphrase you, a common trope among believers. My observation is that atheists and theists all strive to be good actors with the same vigor and have similar rates of pride. To an atheist, there is no greater conceit than to claim some special knowledge through revelation from a supernatural being.

We would do well as a community to emphasize our similarities rather than dwell on our differences. As a non-believer I come to this site to get this Catholic perspective without undue moralizing, and I think you do a good job. The fact is that most of us in western civilization grew up in theistic households, but some of us feel that we achieved a realization that theism is not sustainable as a model for modern civilization.

What am I to do if I just can’t believe that a guy rose from the dead, or that Mary appeared in Green Bay, WI? Shut up and pretend I do? Or seek a more sustainable framework with which to live my life?

In our culture, such a realization does not come easily—it is not a popular stance to take and goes against every cultural precept we have been fed, so in that respect I suppose admission to atheism takes some semblance of self-confidence… but “pride” in the pejorative sense? Many atheists I know do not “claim one is much better than the foolish believer”, although I suppose such atheists exist. “Phariseeism”? Please, you’re better than that, Mark.

For every annoying solipsistic atheist, I can name 3 annoying self-righteous theists, Pope Benedict notwithstanding. I would guess that such narcissism has nothing to do with one’s belief system (or lack thereof), but more to do with human nature.

Posted by Billy Bean on Saturday, Dec 11, 2010 12:21 AM (EDT):

Mark freakin’ Shea: You always say what I wish I’d said ! (Lord Jesus, If I have blaspjemed, have mercy!. . . )

Posted by Mark Shea on Friday, Dec 10, 2010 11:14 PM (EDT):

Believing in God is not necessary to live a moral and spiritual life. What I do fear is simplistic and ignorant thinking, and religious fundamentalism, whether it be Christian, Jew or Muslim.

This is a common trope among non-believers. And while it’s true that a) atheists are not necessarily worse sinners than Christians and. b) simplistic fundamentalism is bad, it is not the case that living a virtuous life has nothing to do with God. The reality is, all have the good we have or do, even with atheists, is a gift of God. What virtues an atheist possesses are likewise gifts of God, just as they are for Christians. Failure to acknowledge that by an atheist can be due, in the end, only either to ignorance (the charitable assumption) or profound pride.

The constant refrain of atheists “I am a moral person!” can partly be chalked up to the insistent of some ignorant Christians that atheists are necessarily immoral, but I don’t think the whole thing is due to that. What often characterizes atheists is a deep pride: the insistent claim that one is so much better than that foolish believer over there with his Crutch. It’s a form of Phariseeism. Not all atheists do this, but an awful lot do. It’s anything but “immoral” in the common sense of that word (i.e., licentious or without regard for morality). On the contrary, most western atheism is, as Benedict points out, intensely moralistic. It perpetually sits in judgment of God for making a world that outrages the moral sensibilities of the atheist.

Posted by Sandra Currie on Friday, Dec 10, 2010 10:37 PM (EDT):

We hope that technology, regulation, and force will save us. The narrative of this world is that trusting God is pollyanna nonsense. As long as we embrace that folly and keep trusting in money, sex, and power we will continue to sink into fear.

Mark, I know that techology, force and wars will not save us. And I know that government has a responsibility to regulate corporations so that they operate in the best interests of the citizens and not their own greed.

And I don’t trust money, sex and power. Believing in God is not necessary to live a moral and spiritual life.

What I do fear is simplistic and ignorant thinking, and religious fundamentalism, whether it be Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Posted by Billy Bean on Friday, Dec 10, 2010 8:51 PM (EDT):

I have recently been blessed by Father Robert Barron’s take on a number of subjects, bothe theological and cultural. I was particularly taken with his tw part review of the HBO series, The Sopranos, having never seen it until this very week. My youngest daughter and her husband sent us the whole series for Christmas, and insisted we open it early. Wow. It seems to be a larger than life metaphor. For what? You tell me.

Posted by James on Friday, Dec 10, 2010 6:30 PM (EDT):

From T.S. Eliot
They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect
that no one will need to be good.

Posted by Gabriel Austin on Friday, Dec 10, 2010 4:54 PM (EDT):

Rachel writes: “Blessed Mother and one - for us here in America - was approved only this week”.

“Approved” seems to say that we approve of the Blessed Mother. Say rather, recognized.

Posted by Bob N. on Friday, Dec 10, 2010 1:21 PM (EDT):

I don’t usually like Peg Noonan’s take on things, but she has seen through some kind of reality window here. Mark, you are right in that we have made this culture, the world’s culture, into a culture of death and that is the underlying root of our well founded fears of the future. Where did we think the culture of death would bring us? Certainly the liar of liars told us the reward would be something different. Now, even the most skeptical of moral/spiritual things are seeing what lies ahead. Some of us, though, know that fear and hand wringing are useless and are turning more closely to our God. Thank you Mark for your insight, again!

I am particularly touched that her article ends on mentioning the many visits of the Blessed Mother and one - for us here in America - was approved only this week. What has Mary asked, “Teach the children and pray”. So simple but how many as Ms. Noonan laments have no time and no interest.

Pray and repent. Thank you, Mark for the reminder.

Posted by pH on Friday, Dec 10, 2010 10:43 AM (EDT):

Blackholes may not even exist; but, it is thought that they are solipsistic: they suck everything into themselves. It could be that some form of something leaks out in some form or other. Whatever does leak out is most likely, if it even “is,” inconsequential.

To make a long story short, “illegitimi non carborundmm, Mark. Keep up the good work.

A peaceful Advent to you

Posted by Tony61 on Friday, Dec 10, 2010 10:28 AM (EDT):

Reading 12 year old Noonan columns? Be careful, you could hurt yourself.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Mark Shea

Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.